“As someone who cared a lot about the Movie reflecting a reasonable (though vastly bigger-budgeted) TOS design ethic, to be somewhat CLOSE to the original series aesthetic where the Enterprise, it’s Bridge, it’s handphasers and it’s main crew uniforms look, and is not too impressed so far…”

I really like the uniforms, and haven’t seen any images of the props yet. I’m sort of on the fence about the bridge. I can see the TOS lines in parts of it, but I want to see more before I judge it. But unless the film crashes and burns so badly that Paramount just plain disavows the whole thing, I’m still more okay with accepting it as a different portrayal of an existing world, rather than a whole alternate universe.

But that’s just MHO.

My only problem with that is that I don’t assess whether something is part of the established Trekverse on the basis of whether I-or anybody else, really-like it or don’t like it. ;) I add any established datapoints into the overall dataset without regard to whether I personally liked or disliked the project in question.

And that is indeed a reasonable outlook.
As someone who cared a lot about the Movie reflecting a reasonable (though vastly bigger-budgeted) TOS design ethic, to be somewhat CLOSE to the original series aesthetic where the Enterprise, it’s Bridge, it’s handphasers and it’s main crew uniforms look, and is not too impressed so far….I guess that I just trying to find a way….I guess I am just trying to make a couple of ‘get-out’ clauses for myself, whichever way this Movie turns out for me….

Of course, a lot of Trek fans in general won’t worry as much as myself about certain details, and ‘newbies’ to the whole Star Trek Universe at large will especially not be thinking about ANY of this, and can just enjoy the Movie regardless. Guess I just didn’t like this whole ‘alternative timeline’ thing in the first place, which gives J.J. et al the freedom to change a lot of stuff I previously loved the look of. I still wish it the best even though.

Thanks, on both counts.

“However, I’ve resigned myself to just thinking it’s a win, win scenario whatever the outcome -

If it IS written to have an ‘anything goes potential future’ conclusion, but the Movie is *terrific* and a smash hit….then it should be embraced warmly by many, regardless. Who knows, the ‘timeline’ could be written to be interfered with AGAIN in any future sequels, to resemble previously accepted ‘canon’ again…. ;)

If it ends like that, BUT the Movie is *lousy* and a misfire at the box-office….then it can be just dismissed as some totally ‘alternative’ / ‘mirror image’ TOS Trek drivel that DOESN’T negate the ‘established’ Trek Universe….although this would be a sad outcome to what was a great chance to relaunch Trek in general.”

My only problem with that is that I don’t assess whether something is part of the established Trekverse on the basis of whether I–or anybody else, really–like it or don’t like it. ;) I add any established datapoints into the overall dataset without regard to whether I personally liked or disliked the project in question.

More importantly, though, what would be the likelihood of Paramount/CBS supporting the previously established Trekverse if the movie creates an alternate continuity and does even moderately well? I could easily see them making a huge push toward bringing licensing, other tie-ins, etc. into line with an Abramsverse, leaving previous Trek high and dry. (Actually, it might not impact the other Classic Trek features or the other series so much, though it’s hard to say. But TOS could be hugely impacted.)

Speaking solely for myself, I’d still have to think of any outcome in which the new film consciously breaks away from the established Trekverse as a loser scenario. If it’s successful, it fractures the general continuity we’ve enjoyed for over 40 years. If it’s hugely not successful, how likely is it that the studio would even try again with the Trek property?

Of course, if it falls somewhere in between those extremes, it might be that the studio will try a different approach, possibly with other production teams not feeling beholden to an Abramsverse, but even that’s an uncertain possibility, too, especially if they’re hungry to recoup whatever investment they can out of it.

And, all that said, I should be fair and reiterate that we really don’t know that they’re going to do that sort of continuity-fracture at all. As I said to Bob, pending anything that really suggests that they’re doing that, I’ll be willing to trust him, Alex K., JJ Abrams, et al. in what they’ve told us to date that they have no such plan to break continuity to that degree. :)

….then it can be just dismissed as some totally ‘alternative’ ‘mirror image’ Trek-alike drivel that DOESN’T negate the ‘established’ TOS Trek Universe….

However, I’ve resigned myself to just thinking it’s a win, win scenario whatever the outcome –

If it IS written to have an ‘anything goes potential future’ conclusion, but the Movie is *terrific* and a smash hit….then it should be embraced warmly by many, regardless. Who knows, the ‘timeline’ could be written to be interfered with AGAIN in any future sequels, to resemble previously accepted ‘canon’ again…. ;)

If it ends like that, BUT the Movie is *lousy* and a misfire at the box-office….then it can be just dismissed as some totally ‘alternative’ / ‘mirror image’ TOS Trek drivel that DOESN’T negate the ‘established’ Trek Universe….although this would be a sad outcome to what was a great chance to relaunch Trek in general.

I just dont want people to forget the original Star Trek and the other shows because of this movie

To me TNG was a great show in its own right and always will be. I love all the shows. Granted it needs a new fresh perspective and hopefully JJ will give that.

I want the new fans to see the Star Treks we grew up with and I would love TOS Shatner and Nimoy to still be the faces on TOS novels. I will embrace the new actors but dont want the public to forget the originals.

I want to love this film and I hope that I do

I have to remember that change is good not sacriledge

But the impression I get from Bob, and Alex and JJ and everyone who has spoken on behalf of this film, is that they really respect it.”

I agree with that, really. Perhaps it’s all the “reboot” yammering that’s made me more nervous about this than I need to be. I freely admit, I despise reboots, and the very thought that something might be done to Star Trek that would say, in response to the huge, rich universe that it has, “Well, y’know, never mind all that, we’re just gonna do our own thing…” just makes my skin crawl.

Now, to be fair, JJ, Bob, and Alex have all pretty much said that they feel the film should be considered part of the Trekverse, though I think when they also said that some folks would disagree with them, they may have meant the ones who, for example, insist that the look must be identical (visual vs. storytelling canon, as they say) to TOS in every detail. But I also have to admit that comments like Lindelof’s in EW still make me worry a bit. Perhaps all the reboot babble is making me less trusting than I ought to be, and if I am being unfair to Bob and Alex and JJ and the others, I apologize. I so want to be unhesitatingly excited about this film, but I have to admit, it’d be a whole lot easier if they’d drop the verbal tap-dancing and say, explicitly, “Yes, this is a story that, when all is said and done, is a part of the same Star Trek Universe as all the rest, period.” I don’t need to know the secrets of the plot. I just need to know they’re not playing “backdoor reboot” games, and once I do, I can embrace what I’m seeing without any hesitation.

“And what I fully expect to see, come May, is an interpretation of Star Trek *as they see it* seen through the lens of the filmmaker’s art.”

And I think that’s fair. Every different filmmaker will bring his or her own twist to it. For example, Nick Meyer brought his own sensibilities to Trek, some quite starkly different than many other producers and directors, but TWOK and TUC are still obviously part of the rest of Trek. If JJ Abrams and the others have done the same thing, and done it well, they will have my praise, and my apologies for ever doubting them. I think I can offer that without uncertainty. :)

“For provoking discussion of the idea of originality and pre-existing work, I thank you.

Great discussion.

:) ”

And thank you, too, for joining in! :)

Alex, if “originality” is used to displace respect to the subject matter, well, that’s wrong.

But the impression I get from Bob, and Alex and JJ and everyone who has spoken on behalf of this film, is that they really respect it.

And what I fully expect to see, come May, is an interpretation of Star Trek *as they see it* seen through the lens of the filmmaker’s art.

For provoking discussion of the idea of originality and pre-existing work, I thank you.

Great discussion.

:)

DaveO

Thanks! :)

“But there’s this nagging question…

If I get a friend to sit for me, and pull out brushes and paints and canvas, and work for hours shaping my impressions of who she is, and choosing colors, and curving lines… and sparkle of eyes…

And you stand behind me, and say, “Wow, that really looks like her!”

Is my painting an original?

:) ”

Answer: It’s an original painting, but the character in that painting is not an original creation of the artist. :)

“(Alex, with all due respect, I’m behind Bob on his initial point)”

Oh, I totally understand where he was coming from, really. I happen to agree that it’s entirely possible to use established characters and situations, and create an original story out of them. Every person who ever writes a new story set in a world the writer did not create demonstrates that. As I said to Bob, my original response was one in a particular context. I don’t think that one gets a free pass for suborning, distorting, and otherwise trying to pretend an established universe doesn’t matter simply by claiming originality.

In all fairness, if I were to be precise about it, what I should have said was that “originality” is not a valid justification for creating an alternate version of an already-established fictional world, simply because one doesn’t wish to adhere to what’s already been created for that world.

OTOH, what I said, while a good deal less precise, admittedly, was also a lot stronger, rhetorically, and got some better reactions than doing it the other way might have. I can live with that, especially if it leads to an interesting discussion. :)